Rep. Hoyer blames voters for gridlock

On the heels of President Obama's "Malaise Speech," Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has pointed the finger of blame for congressional dysfunction at the American people, more specifically at American voters.

Hoyer told The Hill newspaper that congressional conflict is the consequence of elections. So far, so good. But here's where it gets tricky:

"The American people have every right to be angry [and] disappointed by the performance of the Congress," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol. "Of course, the American people have also elected people with hard stances, so that to some degree the American people are realizing the results of their votes.

"If elections have consequences -- which I think they do -- some of those consequences are getting what you vote for," Hoyer added. "In this case, many people voted for people who thought compromise was not something that they ought to participate in."

Democrat Hoyer clearly remains upset with the outcome of the 2010 election which changed his honorific from Majority to Minority. Hoyer's charges may be correct -- but a bit of context is needed.

Hoyer fails to understand that many Americans think Congress remains dysfunctional because the electorate didn't - or couldn't, in the case of the presidency -- go far enough in 2010, and that their job must be completed in 2012. Many Americans consider congressional dysfunction the best-case scenario until January, 2013. These Americans believe that compromise is a bad thing if compromise means putting America further into debt or moving the country more to the left politically.

Anger at the Americans they are supposed to be governing and finger-pointing and subject-changing by prominent national Democrats will only assist voters in making the right choices next year.

Perhaps we should thank Mr. Hoyer for his candid, if clueless, accusation.

On the heels of President Obama's "Malaise Speech," Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has pointed the finger of blame for congressional dysfunction at the American people, more specifically at American voters.

Hoyer told The Hill newspaper that congressional conflict is the consequence of elections. So far, so good. But here's where it gets tricky:

"The American people have every right to be angry [and] disappointed by the performance of the Congress," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol. "Of course, the American people have also elected people with hard stances, so that to some degree the American people are realizing the results of their votes.

"If elections have consequences -- which I think they do -- some of those consequences are getting what you vote for," Hoyer added. "In this case, many people voted for people who thought compromise was not something that they ought to participate in."

Democrat Hoyer clearly remains upset with the outcome of the 2010 election which changed his honorific from Majority to Minority. Hoyer's charges may be correct -- but a bit of context is needed.

Hoyer fails to understand that many Americans think Congress remains dysfunctional because the electorate didn't - or couldn't, in the case of the presidency -- go far enough in 2010, and that their job must be completed in 2012. Many Americans consider congressional dysfunction the best-case scenario until January, 2013. These Americans believe that compromise is a bad thing if compromise means putting America further into debt or moving the country more to the left politically.

Anger at the Americans they are supposed to be governing and finger-pointing and subject-changing by prominent national Democrats will only assist voters in making the right choices next year.

Perhaps we should thank Mr. Hoyer for his candid, if clueless, accusation.